There's a mercurial plugin for trac that we can play with. Is there
one for git? (I have not looked)

One bummer is that we will likely lose our existing links to commit
revisions (e.g., r1234 will no longer have meaning). Hmm.

On Mar 24, 2008, at 4:00 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> After playing with hg and git for few days, I tend to agree with the
> emacs guys. It looks to me that any of them will do the job (as did
> svn). I don't really care which one will be selected by the
> community as long as we:
> 1. Don't spend months in deciding which one to choose.
> 2. Don't loose the nice integration o svn with our TRAC. Independent
> on how good/fast the dVCS is, the way svn integrate with trac is a
> real time saver. Tracking bugs, linking to revisions and to the wiki
> are really important features to me, and I think that whatever our
> decision will be we should not lose this.
>
> george.
>
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> LWN.net has an interesting article about how Emacs chose a new
>> version
>> control system: <http://lwn.net/Articles/272011/>
>>
>> They were back in the CVS stone ages, but their main contenders were
>> the same big three of distributed VCSs: git, hg and bzr. The article
>> pulls out a couple of very good quotes from their discussion. The
>> one
>> that caught my eye was from Richard Stallman:
>>
>> We already know the most important thing about what we will find
>> from
>> a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that each
>> has
>> its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive.
>> Each
>> will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work
>> out
>> well enough.
>>
>> - R.
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel